Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

 

TO:

Tom Markus, City Manager

 

FROM:

Scott McCullough, Director of Planning & Development Services

 

Date:

October 31, 2016

 

RE:

HERE Surface parking lot – parking code interpretation

 

 

 

This memo responds to a communication received by Kyle Thompson, Chair of the Oread Residents Association, wherein the Association takes issue with the way that two sections of the Land Development Code pertaining to parking were interpreted for the HERE parking lot rezoning application.

 

The Association sets forth that there is an exception to the rule that “off-site Parking Areas require the same or a more intensive zoning classification than that required for the most intensive of the uses served by the shared or off-site Parking Area”, as reflected in Section 20-909 (d) of the Code and that this exception permits the HERE parking lot to be zoned to a lesser district than that required by code.

 

While the Association’s reading of the code is one valid interpretation, it is not the interpretation of Staff for the reasons noted below.  The Association has exposed some poorly crafted code language that is in need of correcting since it appears that the intent of the code is in contradiction with the strict reading of the code and the exception appears to be greater than the rule.

 

Discussion

 

The subject code sections are as follows:

 

 20-909 Shared and Off-Site Parking:

(d)      Zoning Classification

Shared and off-site Parking Areas require the same or a more intensive zoning classification than that required for the most intensive of the uses served by the shared or off-site Parking Area, except as permitted in Section 20-535.  Shared and off-site Parking Areas are to be considered Accessory Uses to the Principal Uses that the Parking Spaces serve.

 

 20-535  Accessory Parking

Accessory Parking shall be located in the same Zoning District as the use to which it is accessory.  Accessory Parking may be permitted in a different Zoning District by site plan approval, subject to the following limitations:

 

(1)     accessory Parking for a nonresidential use shall in no case be allowed in an RS Zoning District;

 

(2)     accessory Parking for a use permitted in a C Zoning District may be permitted in an RO or RM Zoning District, provided that the total area of such Parking shall not be greater than 10,000 square feet; and

 

(3)     approval of any such accessory Parking in a different Zoning District shall be made subject to appropriate Bufferyard or other Screening requirements to limit the impact of the accessory Parking on the other Zoning District.

 

The exception to the rule of requiring the same or more intensive zoning is highlighted in yellow and is tied to site planning the parking area.  If interpreted this way, essentially any use can be served by a lesser zoning district as long as it receives site plan approval and if the limitations are followed.  The disconnect in the code is that all parking areas, except Detached Dwellings and Duplexes, require site plan approval. So while the exception has limitations, there are detrimental consequences to reading the code in this manner as reflected below:

 

  1. With site plan approval, an industrial use can be served by a parking lot in the RM12D zoning district.
  2. With site plan approval, an apartment complex can maximize its density in an RM district by locating all buildings on one property and then transfer its parking to RS zoned lots since this is a residential use.
  3. With site plan approval, a big box store can locate its accessory parking to CN1 zoned lot.

 

Staff has consistently interpreted the code to require the same or more intensive zoning with the exception being that uses permitted in a C Zoning District may be permitted in an RO or RM Zoning District, provided that the total area of such Parking shall not be greater than 10,000 square feet.  To interpret otherwise contradicts the preceding language in the code intended to protect lesser intensity zoning districts from higher intensity uses in higher intensity districts.

 

The Association believes that their interpretation does more to protect the neighborhood since the west property would be zoned to RM12D.  Staff believes such an interpretation would leave neighborhoods open to harmful development of parking lots in lesser zoned districts and that the neighborhood is well protected from more intense development at the subject location by the use of the joint land use designation in the Oread Neighborhood Plan, that it is reasonable to believe that the parking will exist to the benefit of HERE for decades, and that any development contrary to the parking lot will require City Commission action.

 

Staff Conclusion and Recommendation

Staff believes that the code should be clarified to correct the apparent conflicts, align the language better with its intent, and reduce its multiple interpretations. Staff also believes that the interpretation and zoning outcome of the HERE parking lots is consistent with how Staff have interpreted and practiced these sections and have advised others with this similar parking situation.

 

Staff recommends the following:

  1. Maintain the RM32-PD zoning for HERE as adopted on first reading of Ordinance No. 9301 as it is in alignment with the way that Staff has interpreted and practiced sections 20-909 and 20-535 of the Land Development Code.
  2. Initiate a text amendment to sections 20-909 and 20-535 of the Land Development Code to be rolled into a text amendment currently in process that includes comprehensive revisions to Article 9, Parking of the code.

 

Staff believes the necessary protections exist, through the Oread Neighborhood Plan and use of the Planned Development overlay zoning, to convey that intensity greater than the RM12D is not desired on the west side of the project.

 

Alternative

As an alternative, the Commission could accept the Association’s interpretation and waive the Planning Staff’s practice of implementing these code sections and rezone the whole of the property to RM12D-PD, thereby exposing the city to a small risk of potential requests for accessory parking as noted above until the code is revised.